No worries. Thanks to both Eli & Todd for the discussion. I look forward to getting this done and moving ahead to 0.22 and beyond.
thanks, Arun On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:29 PM, "Eli Collins" <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry for rattling you guys, definitely wasn't discussing a veto. I'm > absolutely not opposed, just thought the alternative Todd raised was > worth a couple emails since users have requested both security and > append, and such a branch that includes both of those plus > enhancements and substantial testing exists. > > Arun - I appreciate all the info, looking forward to the release. > > Thanks, > Eli > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Arun C Murthy <[email protected]> wrote: >> *nod* Ok. >> >> Arun >> >> On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:08 PM, "Nigel Daley" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I say just do it. Eli said it wasn't a blocker. Sure it ain't perfect, but >>> it's good enough. >>> >>> Let's move on to 0.22 and beyond. >>> >>> Nige >>> >>> On Jan 13, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 13, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Eli Collins wrote: >>>> >>>>> The cdh3 patch set Todd is talking about is not vanilla 104.3, it's >>>>> 104.3 re-based onto 20.2 plus patches from branch-20 and trunk (the >>>>> performance and stability fixes I think you're referring to, at least >>>>> the ones that have been posted to Apache jira). >>>>> >>>>> Can you post a pointer to the version you're referring to, eg on >>>>> github? If there isn't a big delta between it and the cdh3 patch set >>>>> (which should have the 20-based patches from jira) perhaps you and >>>>> Todd could easily merge in the delta to create 0.20.x? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I can guarantee it will need work to merge the enhancements since >>>> 20.104.3, it's over 6 months of development. The enhancements includes >>>> work on stability such as iterative ls, limits on JT to prevent single >>>> jobs/users from taking it down etc. and lots of bug-fixes to security. So, >>>> unfortunately the delta is pretty large. >>>> >>>> I'm working on a CHANGES.txt which should reflect all the changes i.e. >>>> bug-fixes and enhancements. >>>> >>>>>> The version I'm offering to push to the community has fixed all of them, >>>>>> *plus* the added benefit of several stability and performance fixes we >>>>>> have >>>>>> done since 20.104.3, almost 10 internal releases. This is a battle tested >>>>>> and hardened version which we have deployed on 40,000+ nodes. It is a >>>>>> significant upgrade on 0.20.104.3 which we never deployed. I'm pretty >>>>>> sure >>>>>> *some* users will find that valuable. ;) >>>>> >>>>> Definitely, but better to hit two birds with one stone right? Instead >>>>> of a security + enhancements release and an append release we could >>>>> have a single security + append + enhancements release and users don't >>>>> have to choose. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We are discussing two options: >>>> 20 + security + enhancements >>>> 20 + security + append >>>> >>>> I think the value we provide via 20+security+enhancements release is that >>>> it's stable, tested and deployed at scale. Doing any more work merging 6 >>>> months of work at Yahoo (again, I guarantee it's a lot of work) will need >>>> a lots of cycles to validate, test and stabilize. >>>> >>>> I feel the alternative is a distraction for me, I'd rather work on 0.22. >>>> >>>> I can get 20+security+enhancements done very, very, quickly precisely >>>> because I don't have to spend cycles testing it. >>>> >>>> Does that make sense? Thanks for being patient and bearing with me... >>>> >>>> Arun >>>> >>> >>
